Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Sun Jan 25, 2026 11:22 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 81 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2004 7:39 am 
Anonymous wrote:
now Nige
to ensure we know how you fully understand it tell us in your own words what you think it means please.


We are exempt from spent convictions.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2004 3:28 pm 
I think a lot of problem understanding all of this is that we are dealing with a double negative.
Instead of saying we are exempt from the act which exempts, it would be better if the act says simply that anything we ever do illegally can aways be taken into account.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2004 4:48 pm 
Anonymous wrote:
I think a lot of problem understanding all of this is that we are dealing with a double negative.
Instead of saying we are exempt from the act which exempts, it would be better if the act says simply that anything we ever do illegally can aways be taken into account.


So how do we go on if we have a string on driving convictions like

3 IN10's disq 18 months
1 DR10 disq 18 months
1 DR10 disq Sentenced 18 months

I bet you'd still give him a badge wouldn't you?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2004 6:55 pm 
Nidge wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
I think a lot of problem understanding all of this is that we are dealing with a double negative.
Instead of saying we are exempt from the act which exempts, it would be better if the act says simply that anything we ever do illegally can aways be taken into account.


So how do we go on if we have a string on driving convictions like

3 IN10's disq 18 months
1 DR10 disq 18 months
1 DR10 disq Sentenced 18 months

I bet you'd still give him a badge wouldn't you?



supposing those convictions were at age 18.
does that mean at age 58 he still does not qualify

a licensing officer has to be reasonable something you are not!


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2004 7:03 pm 
He can still take it into account.
But if he has 40 years of good conduct, then even if an LO refuses him a license, a court wont.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2004 7:26 pm 
Anonymous wrote:
Nidge wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
I think a lot of problem understanding all of this is that we are dealing with a double negative.
Instead of saying we are exempt from the act which exempts, it would be better if the act says simply that anything we ever do illegally can aways be taken into account.


So how do we go on if we have a string on driving convictions like

3 IN10's disq 18 months
1 DR10 disq 18 months
1 DR10 disq Sentenced 18 months

I bet you'd still give him a badge wouldn't you?



supposing those convictions were at age 18.
does that mean at age 58 he still does not qualify

a licensing officer has to be reasonable something you are not!


6 years ago Geoff, where do you get aged 58 from, he was born in 72 makes him a funny 58.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 25, 2004 10:01 pm 
Nidge your facts don't suit his argument so he is trying to make you look foolish, problem is he is the one being shown to be the fool.

Advice to all criminals, go to Halifax and speak to Geoff, he''l not only get you a badge he'll probably give you a radio and an unsafe car to drive.

B. Lucky


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 12:16 am 
Gateshead Angel wrote:
Nidge your facts don't suit his argument so he is trying to make you look foolish, problem is he is the one being shown to be the fool.

Advice to all criminals, go to Halifax and speak to Geoff, he''l not only get you a badge he'll probably give you a radio and an unsafe car to drive.

B. Lucky



Mick,
that is totaly and utterly unfair.

if you are incapable to rising to proper and fair argument perhaps you should not bother at all.

you lose argument in Gateshead you lose on here, and you do so with childish tantrums.

you even leave the trade now and again and lose there too.

you wont change until you change your loosing mentality


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 2:00 am 
Nidge wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Nidge wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
I think a lot of problem understanding all of this is that we are dealing with a double negative.
Instead of saying we are exempt from the act which exempts, it would be better if the act says simply that anything we ever do illegally can aways be taken into account.


So how do we go on if we have a string on driving convictions like

3 IN10's disq 18 months
1 DR10 disq 18 months
1 DR10 disq Sentenced 18 months

I bet you'd still give him a badge wouldn't you?



supposing those convictions were at age 18.
does that mean at age 58 he still does not qualify

a licensing officer has to be reasonable something you are not!


6 years ago Geoff, where do you get aged 58 from, he was born in 72 makes him a funny 58.





nIGE INSTEAD OF DRIB DRAB OF INFORMATION.
why dont you give the facts?

its all very well you are talking of an individual case and I am talking principle, something you and the bully from gateshead cannot comprehend.

no we wouldnt give this guy a badge merely because we would never be in a position to do something I have said b4
and this case realy should not be splattered on the internet.

does this guy know that someone he trusted to photocopy his papers stole them and leaked them to you?

there is more than him in Mansfield thats not fit and proper?

why Nige are you picking on him? how old is he exactly and how old was he when the sexual offences committed?

it realy is a material consideration?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 5:12 am 
Anonymous wrote:
Gateshead Angel wrote:
Nidge your facts don't suit his argument so he is trying to make you look foolish, problem is he is the one being shown to be the fool.

Advice to all criminals, go to Halifax and speak to Geoff, he''l not only get you a badge he'll probably give you a radio and an unsafe car to drive.

B. Lucky



Mick,
that is totaly and utterly unfair.

if you are incapable to rising to proper and fair argument perhaps you should not bother at all.

you lose argument in Gateshead you lose on here, and you do so with childish tantrums.

you even leave the trade now and again and lose there too.

you wont change until you change your loosing mentality


It is fair Geoff you are supporting a pervert who does Social Services work taking kids to school. Once a pervert always a pervert.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 5:15 am 
Anonymous wrote:
Nidge wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Nidge wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
I think a lot of problem understanding all of this is that we are dealing with a double negative.
Instead of saying we are exempt from the act which exempts, it would be better if the act says simply that anything we ever do illegally can aways be taken into account.


So how do we go on if we have a string on driving convictions like

3 IN10's disq 18 months
1 DR10 disq 18 months
1 DR10 disq Sentenced 18 months

I bet you'd still give him a badge wouldn't you?



supposing those convictions were at age 18.
does that mean at age 58 he still does not qualify

a licensing officer has to be reasonable something you are not!


6 years ago Geoff, where do you get aged 58 from, he was born in 72 makes him a funny 58.





nIGE INSTEAD OF DRIB DRAB OF INFORMATION.
why dont you give the facts?

its all very well you are talking of an individual case and I am talking principle, something you and the bully from gateshead cannot comprehend.

no we wouldnt give this guy a badge merely because we would never be in a position to do something I have said b4
and this case realy should not be splattered on the internet.

does this guy know that someone he trusted to photocopy his papers stole them and leaked them to you?

there is more than him in Mansfield thats not fit and proper?

why Nige are you picking on him? how old is he exactly and how old was he when the sexual offences committed?

it realy is a material consideration?


26 when he was charged with the gross indecency against 3 children.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 5:17 am 
Gateshead Angel wrote:
Nidge your facts don't suit his argument so he is trying to make you look foolish, problem is he is the one being shown to be the fool.

Advice to all criminals, go to Halifax and speak to Geoff, he''l not only get you a badge he'll probably give you a radio and an unsafe car to drive.

B. Lucky


I know youth, who's he going to back up next week, a murderer? He must be short of drivers for his Taxibus scheme.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 11:28 am 
Nidge wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Gateshead Angel wrote:
Nidge your facts don't suit his argument so he is trying to make you look foolish, problem is he is the one being shown to be the fool.

Advice to all criminals, go to Halifax and speak to Geoff, he''l not only get you a badge he'll probably give you a radio and an unsafe car to drive.

B. Lucky



Mick,
that is totaly and utterly unfair.

if you are incapable to rising to proper and fair argument perhaps you should not bother at all.

you lose argument in Gateshead you lose on here, and you do so with childish tantrums.

you even leave the trade now and again and lose there too.

you wont change until you change your loosing mentality


It is fair Geoff you are supporting a pervert who does Social Services work taking kids to school. Once a pervert always a pervert.




not suppoerting anybody
you have asked questions I have given factual answers

not said I would give badge at all just pointed out the process.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 11:30 am 
Nidge wrote:
Gateshead Angel wrote:
Nidge your facts don't suit his argument so he is trying to make you look foolish, problem is he is the one being shown to be the fool.

Advice to all criminals, go to Halifax and speak to Geoff, he''l not only get you a badge he'll probably give you a radio and an unsafe car to drive.

B. Lucky


I know youth, who's he going to back up next week, a murderer? He must be short of drivers for his Taxibus scheme.



again very unfair
disagree with anything you two say , or point out proceadural lines you get this.

by the way mind your own buisness


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 5:35 pm 
Anonymous wrote:
Nidge wrote:
Gateshead Angel wrote:
Nidge your facts don't suit his argument so he is trying to make you look foolish, problem is he is the one being shown to be the fool.

Advice to all criminals, go to Halifax and speak to Geoff, he''l not only get you a badge he'll probably give you a radio and an unsafe car to drive.

B. Lucky


I know youth, who's he going to back up next week, a murderer? He must be short of drivers for his Taxibus scheme.



again very unfair
disagree with anything you two say , or point out proceadural lines you get this.

by the way mind your own buisness


Never mind Geoff the subsides will soon be rolling in :D :D


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 81 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 208 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group